As I write this, it is the first week of March. Kingston has yet to notice and remains cold and snowy. And, only a couple of weeks ago, the news broke about Jan Rankowski being the true identity of Jace Connors.

I wonder what, if anything, was going through the man's head as he wrote those death threats "in character". If the video I've just watched of theirs is anything to go by, they look like people who'd do almost anything to anyone for a laugh.

I hear that there are some people still arguing over whether machiavelli's 'The Prince' was satire or not. I haven't read it and don't know much about that discussion. It shows how confusing satire can sometimes be, if people have never figured out whether a given book was satire or not.

The example you discussed sounded ridiculous though. Why would you send death threaths as a joke? If I want to parody violence I don't do it by beating somebody up either.

Pseudonym:I hear that there are some people still arguing over whether machiavelli's 'The Prince' was satire or not. I haven't read it and don't know much about that discussion. It shows how confusing satire can sometimes be, if people have never figured out whether a given book was satire or not.

Wait people are discussing whether Machiavelli is satire? I would say not but I can sort of see where people are coming from.

If you want to talk about books that are satire: "Mein Kampf". I'm semi serious on this one. Because it was obviously not meant as satire but it is just so incredible stupid and hilarious. You know, if you manage to ignore the context in which it was written.We actually have a comedian here in Germany, Serdar Somuncu, whose whole act was reading Mein Kampf to his listeners once.Even the Nazis in the audience started laughing.

But on the topic of Hitler: Can somebody explain to me why Chaplin was brave in making "The Great Dictator"? I would understand calling him brave if he had lived in Germany.

Edit: Disregard that, I understood it literally 1 second after clicking post. It's because of the whole people might take it serious thing. Yeah that could have been bad.

At the time the movie started being made, World War II hadn't broken out yet, and tensions with Nazi Germany were quite high. The concern was that a movie mocking fascism, and the Nazis in particular, would escalate tensions and make it more difficult to de-escalate, particularly since Nazi Germany was seen in large part as a buffer between Western Europe and Stalinist Russia.

By the time the movie was released, though, the war had started, Nazi Germany was the enemy, and nobody cared about offending them.

EDIT: I'd go as far as to say that The Great Dictator is a movie that exists on the razor's edge between parody and satire. So, it is a clear send-up, but it also has a lot of satirical elements.

The thing that caught my eye though was the edit at the end with FoolUs commentary and review!!! Big fan of Penn&Teller here! :DI doubt we'll get to see full episodess here, and that series doesn't air in my country which is a shame. I've only caught a few acts on Youtube.Looking forward to that!

I think there are two points which make this an awful example of satire, or rather an example of awful satire:

1. Rather than pointing out the absurdity of what other people were doing, he simply did it to an extreme level2. It wasn't funny

But the two actually work in concert. If Rankowski had demanded that Wu be punished in absolutely absurd ways, like I don't know, being forced to play sexist games for 24 hours straight, it might have drawn some attention to the stupidity of the matters being discussed. My example is poor, but then I'm not a satirist.

In any case, you can't simply emulate something and be as awful as some other people are already being, and then call it satire. The example about eating Irish babies works because it is so absolutely absurd that nobody would take it seriously. But Rankowski didn't do that. People were already sending death threats in manners concerning GG, and when you simply join in, there is not one grain of comedy in it.

Satire is most effective when it reveals the absurdity of a stance or person otherwise thought of as rational or reasonable. This is why the examples of failure mentioned in the article did, because both the gamergate example and the Protestant "kill all Catholics" suggestion were built around trying to satirize something already demonized and rendered absurd in the first place. Gamergate has been converted into an internet boogieman who is worse than Isis, so nearly any attempt to satirize it by simply aping what is claimed of them will instead be seen as validation to the demonizing it already gets. A similar thing happened with the Catholic religious tensions, as the idea of just killing them all is one that was actively pursued for a long time before so the suggestion there validates the stance instead of reveals the absurdity. In both cases the satire failed because it merely validated the ideas already thought of as reasonable instead of revealed the absurdity of it. With gamergate, it was the extreme demonization of the group to the point any action done under the tag was validating that demonization. With the call for killing Catholics, it was backing a sentiment that has been there a while.

When it comes to Chapman, during that age, many people were neutral to the war and some Americans even openly supported Germany. The portrayal of Hitler via satire worked because it revealed the absurdity in those who, til then, were seeing reasonability. The ending speech's heartfelt plea also helped hammer home the contrast.

The heyday of satire was Weimar Germany and look how it stopped Hitler

All those jokes about George W Bush successfully ended his career after 8 years as President of the United States. In fact those jokes made the his support stronger not weaker by the nature of the people making those jokes. The problem with so called satire it's a tiny section of society talking to itself whose own pretensions are ripe for satire in its own right.

Pseudonym:I hear that there are some people still arguing over whether machiavelli's 'The Prince' was satire or not. I haven't read it and don't know much about that discussion. It shows how confusing satire can sometimes be, if people have never figured out whether a given book was satire or not.

Wait people are discussing whether Machiavelli is satire? I would say not but I can sort of see where people are coming from.

The Prince is the polar opposite in views put forward in it to just about everything else he wrote in the field of political science. This i believe has lead the majority academic view that it probably was, though it would appear subtly so. The titular Prince also owes a certain amount to a particularly unpleasant member of the Borgia Family to whom Machiavelli was advisor.

Barbas:I wonder what, if anything, was going through the man's head as he wrote those death threats "in character". If the video I've just watched of theirs is anything to go by, they look like people who'd do almost anything to anyone for a laugh.

I first discovered Jace Connors a few years back. I knew he was doing it for shock value after watching 30 seconds, how the hell did anyone else not get it?

"I will go to Israel, I will rescue Tupac!"

If anyone's going to believe that the person saying that is serious my faith in humanity dwindles.

Fat_Hippo:I think there are two points which make this an awful example of satire, or rather an example of awful satire:

1. Rather than pointing out the absurdity of what other people were doing, he simply did it to an extreme level2. It wasn't funny

But the two actually work in concert. If Rankowski had demanded that Wu be punished in absolutely absurd ways, like I don't know, being forced to play sexist games for 24 hours straight, it might have drawn some attention to the stupidity of the matters being discussed. My example is poor, but then I'm not a satirist.

In any case, you can't simply emulate something and be as awful as some other people are already being, and then call it satire. The example about eating Irish babies works because it is so absolutely absurd that nobody would take it seriously. But Rankowski didn't do that. People were already sending death threats in manners concerning GG, and when you simply join in, there is not one grain of comedy in it.

"If you thought Swift was serious about boiling babies, you wouldn't be the first. By the time Swift published A Modest Proposal, he'd already had his work misinterpreted by the Queen of England and countless other humorless readers who didn't understand irony. Swift wasn't winning any popularity contests in England, that's for sure." - http://www.shmoop.com/a-modest-proposal/

Unfortunately, no matter how absurd your satire, somebody, somewhere will fail to get the joke. I once took the piss out of a certain right-wing, British wannabe fascist organisation by taking on their mannerisms and describing Islam as an alien hive-mind that uses halal meat to genetically convert Pure White Christians, in response to yet another post about how every act of violence committed by someone with darker skin is (of course) ordered personally by ISIS and that halal means 'funds terrorism.' I said this in a left-wing group. Took five minutes for some old guy to say "That's disgustingly racist, Thyunda. Apologise." No matter how many people said "Mate, this is blatantly satire," he would insist that satire does not excuse racism. Especially not such absurd, extreme racism.

Of course, Rankowski's a different matter. Rankowski is, at best, an agent provocateur and at worst a troll gleefully pushing their own limits while claiming sanctuary under the banner of 'comedy.' 'Jace Connors' is the GamerGate equivalent of the guy who joined the IRA in 1919 and stood outside a house with Michael Collins and said "Let's go blow that house up, it has English people in it," while an Army truck waited around the corner. Course, it didn't work because, being a British agent, the man had no idea what the IRA was actually trying to do at the time, and decided to try to play to their extremes to justify an ambush and arrest.It's a poor excuse for 'Jace Connors,' though, because a civilian joining in a lynching isn't trying to get close to the mob leader like an undercover cop, but just joining in with a lynching. Death threats are not okay just because you did them 'in character.' You are right, Fat_Hippo, that Rankowski would have had better luck suggesting something absurd or harmlessly ridiculous - like if I could do what I wanted with Anita Sarkeesian, I'd make her play Hitman: Absolution all the way through, and deprive her of food and water if she says anything about the blatant misogyny or sexualisation of underage girls. Because there's a lot of blatant misogyny and hypersexualisation in that game that she just plain ignored to rant about the strip club level.

Obviously it's not a serious threat. Even if it was, aside from less than eight hours of food/water deprivation (it's not exactly a long game) it's relatively harmless. And it's topical.

It was either Jim Sterling or Yahtzee who pointed it out, possibly both, but a game that claims to be mocking a trope by using that trope is simply being lazy, and the same goes for people. Lollipop Chainsaw didn't mock sexualised female protagonists, it acknowledged that it had a sexualised female protagonist. Rankowski isn't mocking the extreme GamerGaters, Rankowski is acknowledging the extreme GamerGaters, and I sincerely hope he went too extreme and that's how they realised Connors was a character and not a real person. That's..usually how they spot them.

Barbas:I wonder what, if anything, was going through the man's head as he wrote those death threats "in character". If the video I've just watched of theirs is anything to go by, they look like people who'd do almost anything to anyone for a laugh.

I first discovered Jace Connors a few years back. I knew he was doing it for shock value after watching 30 seconds, how the hell did anyone else not get it?

"I will go to Israel, I will rescue Tupac!"

If anyone's going to believe that the person saying that is serious my faith in humanity dwindles.

He issued very real death threats as part of a game. There's such a thing as going too far.

But on the topic of Hitler: Can somebody explain to me why Chaplin was brave in making "The Great Dictator"? I would understand calling him brave if he had lived in Germany.

Edit: Disregard that, I understood it literally 1 second after clicking post. It's because of the whole people might take it serious thing. Yeah that could have been bad.

There was a lot of support in the west for Nazi's, right up until they started declaring war on people, so pointing out how horrible they were was not something people liked to see. Also, until Pearl Harbor America very much saw the Nazi''s as not their problem.

One of the reasons The Daily Mail is referred to The Daily Heil here is they were on of the loudest Pro Nazi voices in the UK, and did their best to deny the holocaust during WWII until the evidence was undeniable (and honestly their not much better today).

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

The Prince is the polar opposite in views put forward in it to just about everything else he wrote in the field of political science. This i believe has lead the majority academic view that it probably was, though it would appear subtly so. The titular Prince also owes a certain amount to a particularly unpleasant member of the Borgia Family to whom Machiavelli was advisor.

Machiavelli was not an advisor to Cesare Borgia. Machiavelli met Cesare Borgia while acting as ambassador from Florentine republic in the brief period when the Medici had been overthrown. During this period the Borgias were trying to establish an hereditary estate comprising the whole of the Papal states. Cesare Borgia played Machiavelli like a violin culminating in the surprise attack on Urbino and the subsequent murder of the Duke. After which Cesare Borgia then threatened Florence with assault unless they paid him a condotta. A condotta was a payment for mercenary troops for the defence of Florence but often, as in this case, was a protection racket.

The Florentine republic was ultimately overthrown by the French and Medici rule was re-established. This spelt the end of Machiavelli's public career. The reality of Machiavelli's life was that he was an abject failure and backed the wrong side. Whether or not the prince was satire or not, the brutal methods in the Prince produced results in Italy.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

Can you link me to the 8chan or KiA threads in question? They always seem to have disappeared when I looked.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

I hope you realize that is a broad sweeping generalization, and therefore inherently WRONG.

unless you can somehow prove ALL "gators" were egging this person on. which you cant, because this is the first time I even heard of this guy.

Jace Connors is more a troll doing things for ze lolz than someone serious about making satire to mock the powerful or the arrogant.

Petromir:The Prince is the polar opposite in views put forward in it to just about everything else he wrote in the field of political science. This i believe has lead the majority academic view that it probably was, though it would appear subtly so. The titular Prince also owes a certain amount to a particularly unpleasant member of the Borgia Family to whom Machiavelli was advisor.

In which case the question is as much if it's sabotage, rather than mere satire - as in, Machiavelli puts forward how not to rule if one wants to keep power, basically ruining any wannabe tyrant that would follow his advice.Though it also had plenty of valid points that would actually help a ruler - for instance, never trust the exiles, they will tell you anything to go back home and back in power.I should re-read the book, but it's quite possible that it was, for someone who was quite disgusted by how the world turned out, a way of denouncing the rulers by showing how they act, or how they have to act, and how damaging that is to freedoms and the people.

Dornedas:[quote="Pseudonym" post="9.877475.22090109"]But on the topic of Hitler: Can somebody explain to me why Chaplin was brave in making "The Great Dictator"? I would understand calling him brave if he had lived in Germany.

A clear case of early cricitism (I won't say satire because the movie wasn't a comedy at all) is Fritz Lang's "Testament of Dr. Mabuse", depicting someone writing his pamphlet and orders from jail, and his goons wrecking havoc throughout Germany, aiming to establish a "Reich des Verbrechens" - or "Empire of Crime". No doubt that some in the 1933 newborn 3rd Reich didn't take it that well. Lang left Germany a few months after the movie's release.

Pseudonym:I hear that there are some people still arguing over whether machiavelli's 'The Prince' was satire or not. I haven't read it and don't know much about that discussion. It shows how confusing satire can sometimes be, if people have never figured out whether a given book was satire or not.

Wait people are discussing whether Machiavelli is satire? I would say not but I can sort of see where people are coming from.

If you want to talk about books that are satire: "Mein Kampf". I'm semi serious on this one. Because it was obviously not meant as satire but it is just so incredible stupid and hilarious. You know, if you manage to ignore the context in which it was written.We actually have a comedian here in Germany, Serdar Somuncu, whose whole act was reading Mein Kampf to his listeners once.Even the Nazis in the audience started laughing.

But on the topic of Hitler: Can somebody explain to me why Chaplin was brave in making "The Great Dictator"? I would understand calling him brave if he had lived in Germany.

Edit: Disregard that, I understood it literally 1 second after clicking post. It's because of the whole people might take it serious thing. Yeah that could have been bad.

You always get debates like this. There's a pretty commonly held belief that Descartes was an Atheist despite the fact that a significant part of his work was arguing for the existence of God. The argument here being that given the time he wrote in he'd have to be making arguments like that and the fairly token way he does it was purely to get people on his side so that he argument of behalf of scientific inquiry, his real goal.

The same kind of thing goes with Machiavelli. Some of the stuff he says is so pointlessly cruel and heartless that it seems like he must be taking the piss. I've often thought the same with "Romeo and Juliet", both the main characters are such idiots that Shakespeare must be taking the piss of of true love... but he probably wasn't he was just writing several centuries ago when these things were thought of differently.

Moral of the story is that satire is difficult and if you're shit at and most people are misunderstanding you then you've only really got yourself to blame.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

Can you link me to the 8chan or KiA threads in question? They always seem to have disappeared when I looked.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

I hope you realize that is a broad sweeping generalization, and therefore inherently WRONG.

unless you can somehow prove ALL "gators" were egging this person on. which you cant, because this is the first time I even heard of this guy.

The comments for his video where he crashed his car was full of people encouraging him in his 'wu-pocalypse', and hoping to see him confront Wu. People were either wanting to see him succeed or thought encouraging someone who was mentally ill and threatening a woman was hilarious thing to do.

Yeah. Idiot was being an idiot and got in trouble because outside the Internet people don't much care why you're being an idiot if you do something illegal. Idiot should be hit with a clue-by-four until he knows why he did wrong.

Side note: If people could start mentally appending "some" to the front of groups when they're being talked about, that'd be great. Unless someone acutally says "all whatsawhosits did <X>", please note they likely mean "some whatsawhosits did <X>" so we can avoid future rounds of #notallwhatsawhosits.

Satire has only one measure to be judged by: Is it funny or not? If you managed to provoke enough laughter, than your satire has a right to exist no matter how many molested crack babies it includes. If you failed in making people laugh than you're doomed, no matter how offensive or family-friendly your comedy is, for there is simply no bigger crime for a comic than being unfunny. That's the most unforgivable thing by itself.

K12:There's a pretty commonly held belief that Descartes was an Atheist despite the fact that a significant part of his work was arguing for the existence of God.

I'm quite sure that questioning the concept and existence of God and holding an argument over it takes one out of the categories that either willingly accept the concept and willingly deny it. I'm quite sure that it makes one not an atheist nor a deist, but a philosopher. A man who questions things. And anyone who actually read Descartes can tell you that he thought over that concept quite a lot, so it's quite unlikely that he included it just for the sake of gaining popularity. One could also remind that his works were written not for a crowd that could burn him at a stake for having wrong beliefs. He was not nailing his books to doors of churches for them to capture the minds of commoners.

K12:The same kind of thing goes with Machiavelli. Some of the stuff he says is so pointlessly cruel and heartless that it seems like he must be taking the piss.

Not really. He just holds his argument in the specific context of principles and laws of operating an entire society. A context that lies well outside our everyday personal ethics. Because from the purely professional point of view, for a king or an emperor million IS in fact a statistic. A part of his job that requires cold and objective evaluation, as opposed to something of human value. That's how Machiavelli was leading his thought.

K12:I've often thought the same with "Romeo and Juliet", both the main characters are such idiots that Shakespeare must be taking the piss of of true love... but he probably wasn't he was just writing several centuries ago when these things were thought of differently.

Again, not really. As it is quite usual with theatrical works, Romeo and Juliet is supposed to be viewed in a specific context of thought and feeling. With Machiavelli it was a purely logical one, and with Shakespeare it's a purely emotional one. The two underage lovers who simply cannot even comprehend anything other their feelings for each other act as a mean of illustrating the idea of pure love in a relatable form, so that the viewer can leave the context of his everyday life behind like R&J leave behind any though of Verona, and immerse in the feelings and ponder the concept together with them.

Of course, it works best from a stage, which is the reason why Shakespeare's works appear absolutely mediocre when simply read like a book.

First off, what he did was obvious, not funny and downright stupid - however not necessarily due to the content, but because so many people were predispositioned against that type of "humor".GG's hated it because they/we were and still are fighting a PR battle. AGG's took offense (as usual) and used it as more ammo.

I see one issue with this article, that Wu was somehow scared of this guy.Wu is a known and proven liar who scams people through Patreon to support her livelyhood.It's proven that she provoked attention and that she didn't go into hiding.

If Jace Connors was aware of these things, then he might have felt safe doing it, because there was no real victim.If he didn't, that just makes him a bigger asshole.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

Can you link me to the 8chan or KiA threads in question? They always seem to have disappeared when I looked.

Keep in mind, that until he was exposed as a 'joke', and was coming across as someone mentally disturbed, channers and gators were actively egging him on and encouraging him to go after Wu. They wanted him to attack her.

I hope you realize that is a broad sweeping generalization, and therefore inherently WRONG.

unless you can somehow prove ALL "gators" were egging this person on. which you cant, because this is the first time I even heard of this guy.

The comments for his video where he crashed his car was full of people encouraging him in his 'wu-pocalypse', and hoping to see him confront Wu. People were either wanting to see him succeed or thought encouraging someone who was mentally ill and threatening a woman was hilarious thing to do.

guess I am forced to repeat myself:

"I hope you realize that is a broad sweeping generalization, and therefore inherently WRONG.

unless you can somehow prove ALL "gators" were egging this person on. which you cant, because this is the first time I even heard of this guy."

cmon, SOME people on some stupid video comment section is not all "gators" nor "channers" nor are they even inherently a single participant in either. it was a video site, according to you.

altnameJag:Yeah. Idiot was being an idiot and got in trouble because outside the Internet people don't much care why you're being an idiot if you do something illegal. Idiot should be hit with a clue-by-four until he knows why he did wrong.

Side note: If people could start mentally appending "some" to the front of groups when they're being talked about, that'd be great. Unless someone acutally says "all whatsawhosits did <X>", please note they likely mean "some whatsawhosits did <X>" so we can avoid future rounds of #notallwhatsawhosits.

if someone is making damning accusations, they better fucking say exactly what they mean.

not 'be up to interpretation,' straight up be accurate in who or what you are accusing and what was done.

Barbas:I wonder what, if anything, was going through the man's head as he wrote those death threats "in character". If the video I've just watched of theirs is anything to go by, they look like people who'd do almost anything to anyone for a laugh.

I first discovered Jace Connors a few years back. I knew he was doing it for shock value after watching 30 seconds, how the hell did anyone else not get it?

"I will go to Israel, I will rescue Tupac!"

If anyone's going to believe that the person saying that is serious my faith in humanity dwindles.

He issued very real death threats as part of a game. There's such a thing as going too far.

You see, I don't think if he was "in character" the death threats meant anything. When one character in a film threatens to shoot another is one actor literally issuing a death threat to another?

BarryMcCociner:You see, I don't think if he was "in character" the death threats meant anything. When one character in a film threatens to shoot another is one actor literally issuing a death threat to another?

He claimed he was doing it in character later, but that was after getting threats of his own. I doubt it made much difference to the person who was being threatened whether he says he meant it or not, because the effect was real enough.

Marxie:Satire has only one measure to be judged by: Is it funny or not? If you managed to provoke enough laughter, than your satire has a right to exist no matter how many molested crack babies it includes. If you failed in making people laugh than you're doomed, no matter how offensive or family-friendly your comedy is, for there is simply no bigger crime for a comic than being unfunny. That's the most unforgivable thing by itself.

Yes... Unless you're making the wrong people laugh. If, for example, you satirize racism and find yourself being very entertaining to racists but nobody else then you've screwed up. Satire is inherently critical and if your work is only appealing to people if they completely miss the critical nature of your work then you have failed at satire (though potentially still succeeded as a comic... just a different one to what you wanted to be.)

By the way. I don't actually accept the "it's satire" claims about Machiavelli, Descartes or Romeo & Juliet just that I understand the logic of where those points come from.

However I will say that Descartes does satirize (well not satirize really, because he never meant to be funny... more aimed to combat) the idea of doubt and skepticism despite the fact that "Descartes doubted stuff" is the thing that everyone thinks they know about him. At the time it was common for Philosophers to make claims doubting everything in the physical world, sneering at scientific inquiry and the idea that we can know things. His whole aim in the meditations was to show that some things could not be doubted and his pretense that he was doubting everything was largely rhetorical.

The claims that he is Atheist largely come from this idea, he attempted to argue on behalf of scientific inquiry via arguing that God exists and is not willfully deceiving us (something that basically everyone accepted at this time). I don't buy it but I get the logic.

altnameJag:Yeah. Idiot was being an idiot and got in trouble because outside the Internet people don't much care why you're being an idiot if you do something illegal. Idiot should be hit with a clue-by-four until he knows why he did wrong.

Side note: If people could start mentally appending "some" to the front of groups when they're being talked about, that'd be great. Unless someone acutally says "all whatsawhosits did <X>", please note they likely mean "some whatsawhosits did <X>" so we can avoid future rounds of #notallwhatsawhosits.

if someone is making damning accusations, they better fucking say exactly what they mean.

not 'be up to interpretation,' straight up be accurate in who or what you are accusing and what was done.

or dont make damning accusations.

I agree. And I'd like people to stop getting offended and going the #notallwhatsawhosits route of getting indigent. It's basic reading comprehension.

altnameJag:Yeah. Idiot was being an idiot and got in trouble because outside the Internet people don't much care why you're being an idiot if you do something illegal. Idiot should be hit with a clue-by-four until he knows why he did wrong.

Side note: If people could start mentally appending "some" to the front of groups when they're being talked about, that'd be great. Unless someone acutally says "all whatsawhosits did <X>", please note they likely mean "some whatsawhosits did <X>" so we can avoid future rounds of #notallwhatsawhosits.

if someone is making damning accusations, they better fucking say exactly what they mean.

not 'be up to interpretation,' straight up be accurate in who or what you are accusing and what was done.

or dont make damning accusations.

I agree. And I'd like people to stop getting offended and going the #notallwhatsawhosits route of getting indigent. It's basic reading comprehension.

How dare you imply that people get offended about shit without specifying if it's all people or some people.

if someone is making damning accusations, they better fucking say exactly what they mean.

not 'be up to interpretation,' straight up be accurate in who or what you are accusing and what was done.

or dont make damning accusations.

I agree. And I'd like people to stop getting offended and going the #notallwhatsawhosits route of getting indigent. It's basic reading comprehension.

How dare you imply that people get offended about shit without specifying if it's all people or some people.

To be clear, this is a joke.

not so much a laughing matter.

saying men are rapists is a serious accusation.

it is accusing ME of being a rapist.

if the person meant a certain kind of man is a rapist, then they should have specified. because as they stated it, they are accusing ALL men of being something horrendous, and that is not right. it should not be up to interpretation.

if the person meant a certain kind of man is a rapist, then they should have specified. because as they stated it, they are accusing ALL men of being something horrendous, and that is not right. it should not be up to interpretation.

But men are rapists. So are women. Dolphins too.

As in, there is group "rapists", there is group "men" and there is a venn diagram that overlaps at more than a single point. Hence, multiple men are rapists. Men is plural, but not all encompassing. If plural nouns worked like that, we wouldn't need the word "all".

if the person meant a certain kind of man is a rapist, then they should have specified. because as they stated it, they are accusing ALL men of being something horrendous, and that is not right. it should not be up to interpretation.

But men are rapists. So are women. Dolphins too.

As in, there is group "rapists", there is group "men" and there is a venn diagram that overlaps at more than a single point. Hence, multiple men are rapists. Men is plural, but not all encompassing. If plural nouns worked like that, we wouldn't need the word "all".

But if plural nouns work the way you insist we wouldn't need the word "some".